From October 3 to 7, I had the privilege of attending the 33rd Annual International Law and Religion Symposium in Utah. The invitation had originally been extended to the CBCP President, Archbishop Gilbert A. Garcera. Since he already had a scheduled meeting in Rome, he asked me to attend in his place.
Just a week before my departure, I learned that I would also be delivering a ten-minute talk. Fortunately, our recent encounter with our Muslim brothers in Egypt provided a timely experience on which to draw. It helped me reflect on the symposium’s theme, “Building an Infrastructure for Freedom of Religion or Belief,” and share our Philippine experience of building trust across religious differences.
Organized by the International Center for Law and Religion Studies at Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School, the symposium brought together 243 registered participants. Among them were 99 specially invited international delegates from 51 countries, representing different faiths and backgrounds in academe, government, law, business, human rights, and civil society. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who accompanied the delegates, together with other participants from Utah, also took part.
Over one evening and two full days of formal sessions, I attended eleven sessions and listened to forty-three talks and speeches excluding the introductions made by the moderators. It was my first time attending a symposium with so many speakers within such a short span. Five of the sessions I attended were plenaries for the entire gathering; six were breakout sessions, with three to five groups meeting simultaneously. These choices offered a wide range of perspectives, although no participant could hear every presentation.
Altogether, the symposium featured 118 speakers, most of whom were also delegates. This number included the session moderators, who briefly introduced each topic and presented the speakers. Looking at the packed schedule, I initially wondered how we would absorb so much in so little time. Yet somehow, everything fitted together. Organizing an event of this scale—with so many speakers, concurrent sessions, and simultaneous interpretation for speakers and participants who were not native English speakers—was truly a marvel.
The account that follows brings together the sessions I attended and the visits and conversations that enriched those days.
October
3, A warm welcome in Utah
After a journey of approximately fourteen hours, I arrived in Salt
Lake City on the afternoon of Saturday, October 3, 2026.
At the airport, I was warmly welcomed by students from Brigham Young
University, who brought me to the Marriott Hotel in Provo, where the symposium
delegates were accommodated.
Although tired from the journey, I joined the other delegates who
had arrived earlier for a welcome dinner at Zermatt Resort, a picturesque
mountain resort approximately 46 kilometers from Provo.
There I met the two other Filipino delegates: Commissioner Maria
Amifaith Fider-Reyes of the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, and
Renz Christian Argao, a clinical psychologist and peace advocate involved with
Religions for Peace.
I also met three representatives of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints who were connected with the Philippines: Haidi Fajardo, RJ
Espera, and Don Fletcher, a legal counsel assigned in Manila.
Throughout our stay, these three were exceptionally attentive to our
needs. They made sure that we were comfortable and that everything was properly
arranged. Their warmth and generosity made us feel at home despite being
thousands of kilometers away from the Philippines.
The welcome dinner introduced me to the people with whom I would
share the symposium. Before we began examining the institutions that protect
religious freedom, we were already experiencing the hospitality that makes
dialogue possible.
.jpg)
.jpg)
October
4 Worship and the opening conversation
Our first full day began early as the symposium delegates traveled
from Provo to Salt Lake City to attend the semiannual General Conference of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The gathering took place at the magnificent LDS Conference Center,
whose enormous auditorium, with a seating capacity of approximately 21,000, was
filled to capacity with Church members who had come to participate in this
important religious event.
The morning began with Music and the Spoken Word, a thirty-minute
program featuring the renowned Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square. Listening to
the choir in person, surrounded by thousands of worshippers, was a memorable
experience.
This was followed by the two-hour Sunday morning session of the
General Conference. As a Catholic priest, I found it meaningful to observe how
another Christian religious community gathers its members for worship,
instruction, and spiritual encouragement.
After the General Conference, the symposium delegates gathered for
lunch at the Marriott Hotel in Salt Lake City.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
In the afternoon, the Philippine delegates were treated to a
sightseeing tour of the Utah State Capitol, with Mike Mower from the Office of
the Governor serving as our guide. He graciously introduced us to the history
and government of Utah as we explored the impressive Capitol building.
From the Capitol, we proceeded to the Cathedral of the Madeleine in
Salt Lake City to participate in the Sunday Eucharist. I was grateful for the
opportunity to concelebrate Mass with Bishop Felix Machado from India, who was
also a delegate to the symposium. The Mass was celebrated in Spanish by the
assistant pastor, Fr. Andre.
It was meaningful to participate in the Catholic Eucharist after
spending the morning with members of the LDS Church. The two religious
gatherings were different in their theology, liturgy, and traditions, yet both
reflected the deep human desire to worship God and live according to one's
religious convictions.
Immediately after Mass, we traveled to Brigham Young University in
Provo for the formal opening of the symposium.
The morning’s religious gathering, our visit to the Capitol, and the
afternoon Eucharist offered different settings in which to consider faith and
public life. That evening, the symposium gave these experiences a common
question: what must a society build and sustain so that people can live their
religious convictions freely?
The symposium opened on Sunday evening at Brigham Young University.
BYU President C. Shane Reese delivered the welcome remarks. David Moore, Dean
of the J. Reuben Clark Law School also delivered a welcome message. Brett
Scharffs, Director of the International Center for Law and Religion Studies
then introduced the theme through an analogy with the essential infrastructure
of a community: roads, bridges, public spaces, lighting, electricity, water,
and sanitation. Just as these systems make a city livable, religious freedom
requires interconnected structures that make its exercise possible.
Chaloka Beyani, the United Nations Special Adviser on the Prevention
of Genocide, also addressed the opening session. Their participation situated
the symposium within a broader conversation about law, human dignity, peaceful
coexistence, and the prevention of violence.
.jpg)
.jpg)
Making
room for religious diversity
The first keynote address was delivered by Professor Eugenia Relaño
Pastor of the Complutense University of Madrid. She offered a juridical and
theoretical examination of the existing architecture of freedom of religion or
belief. Her central argument was that legal systems should begin with the
reality of diversity rather than treat it as an exception requiring occasional
accommodation.
She described religious freedom as an interconnected system of
legal, institutional, social, and cultural supports. Although international
instruments recognize this freedom, its practical meaning varies across
jurisdictions. Courts and public authorities do not always interpret its
protections consistently, and religious communities do not necessarily enjoy
equal opportunities to exercise them.
One important distinction concerns the internal freedom to hold,
change, or reject a belief and the external manifestation of religion through
worship, teaching, observance, and practice. Relaño observed that the
interpretation of these protections, particularly the permissible limits on
religious manifestations, can be influenced by the assumptions of a dominant
religious or secular culture. Practices unfamiliar to the majority may
therefore face disadvantages even within systems that formally affirm equality.
She also identified gaps between the protection of religious
freedom, the prohibition of religious discrimination, and the protection of
persons belonging to religious minorities. Minority protection remains uneven,
while the state often retains considerable authority to decide which
communities qualify for recognition. This can create a paradox: the groups most
in need of protection depend upon the majority-controlled state to determine
whether they deserve it.
Her Spanish examples illustrated how different categories of
recognition can produce unequal access to religious education, chaplaincy,
financing, taxation arrangements, and institutional cooperation. She also
stressed that religious freedom is lived locally—in schools, hospitals,
cemeteries, places of worship, and public spaces. National guarantees may
therefore be undermined by regional or municipal practices.
Relaño proposed a “law of diversity.” Instead of starting with a
supposedly homogeneous society and granting exceptions to selected minorities,
the law should recognize pluralism as a permanent feature of society. General
mechanisms of accommodation, non-discrimination, dialogue, participation, and
institutional cooperation should be designed accordingly.
Her contribution challenged us to consider whether our legal
structures truly serve everyone. Religious diversity should be part of the
legal blueprint from the beginning, rather than an inconvenience addressed
after the structure has already been built.
Relaño’s attention to the legal design of a diverse society was
complemented by the second keynote address, which examined the culture and
practical conditions needed to make those protections effective.
The second keynote address was delivered by Preeti Saran of India, a
member of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
She identified three conditions necessary for genuine religious freedom: a
culture that welcomes pluralism, laws and institutions that protect it, and
effective implementation of those protections.
Drawing on India’s religious and cultural diversity, she described
pluralism as an integral part of national identity. Hinduism, Buddhism,
Jainism, and Sikhism originated in India, while other religious traditions have
long-established communities there. Religious identity exists alongside
linguistic, ethnic, cultural, and other forms of belonging.
Saran illustrated this coexistence through participation in one
another’s festivals, respectful encounters with different places of worship,
and her own experience of Christian education. She presented these examples as
expressions of an identity capable of appreciating other traditions while
remaining rooted in one’s own.
She then connected this cultural dimension with constitutional
protections and democratic institutions. Rights require an independent
judiciary, public accountability, civil society, and the actual enforcement of
legal safeguards. A culture of acceptance and a system of legal protection must
support one another.
Her experience within the United Nations also led her to emphasize
the indivisibility of human rights. Religious freedom cannot be isolated from
education, health, work, cultural participation, economic security, and an
adequate standard of living. Its practical exercise becomes more difficult when
people lack the conditions necessary for a dignified life.
She identified inequality, instability, concentrated power, and
rapid technological change as challenges to human dignity. Her response was a
human-centered approach in which international standards, public institutions,
and interreligious dialogue work together. The task is to enable people to
remain faithful to their traditions while recognizing the dignity and freedom
of others.
Together, the two addresses set the direction for the coming
sessions: legal guarantees must be fair in their design and dependable in their
implementation, while the surrounding culture must allow people to live their
differences with dignity.
Following the opening ceremonies, a reception was held at the Fritz
B. Burns Memorial Lounge and Law Library. It was an opportunity to meet
delegates from different countries, renew acquaintances, and begin
conversations that would continue throughout the symposium.
.jpg)
Professor Eugenia Relaño Pastor of the Complutense University of Madrid delivering the first keynote speech.
.jpg)
Preeti Saran, a former diplomat from India giving the second keynote speech.
October
5 Institutions and the relationships that sustain them
Monday brought a full day of presentations and exchanges. I also
learned that morning that my own talk, originally scheduled for a breakout
session on Tuesday, had been moved to the afternoon plenary. I would now share
the Philippine experience with the wider gathering. As I listened to the
morning discussions, I found many points of connection with the role of trust
in our own interreligious work.
When
cooperation becomes control
The morning session examined a difficult question: when does the
institutional relationship between religion and government protect religious
freedom, and when does it become a means of control? Four speakers approached
this question from historical, constitutional, political, and philosophical
perspectives.
Jean-Christophe Jasmin of the Cardus Institute presented Quebec as a
warning about the gradual erosion of religious freedom when communities lack
durable structures for defending it.
Historically, the Catholic Church played a major role in education,
health care, social services, culture, and civic life. The Quiet Revolution
brought rapid secularization and the transfer of many of these responsibilities
to the state. As Catholic influence declined, no permanent interreligious
structure fully replaced its earlier role as an intermediary between religious
communities and government.
Jasmin distinguished the secular character of the state from the
plural character of society. A state should remain impartial, but citizens
should be free to express religious and nonreligious convictions publicly. His
concern was that Quebec increasingly expects society itself to conform to a
secular model, rather than maintaining a secular state within which diverse
convictions can flourish.
He discussed restrictions on visible religious symbols and the
difficulty of responding through legal challenges alone. During the pandemic,
religious communities formed a coalition to communicate with government, but
this cooperation did not develop into a sufficiently durable institution.
Subsequent tensions further exposed the fragility of relationships built only
in response to emergencies.
His proposed response was stronger interreligious cooperation,
coordinated civic participation, and independent monitoring of religious
freedom. In the discussion, he emphasized that Quebec cannot simply return to
its former religious order. It must build new structures appropriate to a
pluralistic society.
Eunseok Paik, Professor of Law at Handong International Law School,
South Korea, approached the topic through the history of religious liberty and
Korea’s constitutional development. He argued that religious freedom begins
with the conscience and free choice of the person. Faith cannot be
authentically produced by coercion.
Drawing on early Christian thinkers, he connected religious liberty
with a foundational principle of constitutional government: political authority
has limits. There are dimensions of human life, especially conscience, that the
state cannot legitimately dominate.
His comparison of Korean constitutional formulations highlighted the
importance of protecting both personal conscience and religion’s independence
from political power. Governments may undermine this independence when they
treat religious communities primarily as institutional partners whose
recognition, access, or privileges depend upon political cooperation.
During the discussion, Paik acknowledged that religious freedom
extends beyond internal belief to public practice and communal life.
Nevertheless, the person’s conscience remains its foundation. Institutions
should protect that freedom rather than replace the individual with a
government-approved religious category.
Professor Ani Sarkissian of Michigan State University added a
comparative political-science perspective. All governments regulate religion in
some way, but the purpose and effects of regulation differ. She distinguished
the rule of law, which constrains rulers as well as citizens, from rule by law,
in which legal mechanisms become instruments of political control.
Her important contribution was to show that religious freedom can be
threatened by both repression and apparently favorable government support.
Funding, official recognition, policy concessions, and institutional privileges
may create dependence or become incentives for political loyalty.
She distinguished symbolic, material, and institutional forms of
support. Public recognition can associate one religion with national identity;
financial assistance can be distributed unequally; and formal incorporation
into government can give some religious communities influence denied to others.
To provide assistance, the state must also classify and regulate religion,
giving it power to determine which communities qualify.
These risks are present in democracies as well as authoritarian
systems. Formal equality does not automatically remove differences in wealth,
institutional capacity, political access, and public acceptance.
In the discussion, Sarkissian recommended a level playing field.
Religious organizations should, where appropriate, participate in public life
under the same fair conditions as comparable civil-society organizations.
Cooperation should support their contribution without making religious autonomy
dependent upon government favor.
Michael Matheson Miller of the Acton Institute and the Center for
Social Flourishing examined the ideas that sustain religious freedom. He
distinguished “institutions of justice” from the “intellectual scaffolding”
beneath them.
The institutions include the rule of law, private property, freedom
of association, the family, economic freedom, and a vigorous civil society.
These structures allow people and communities to act independently of political
power. Families, schools, religious organizations, and other associations stand
between the isolated individual and the state.
Yet institutions cannot sustain themselves without convictions about
justice, truth, reason, freedom, and the dignity of the person. Miller argued
that legality alone is insufficient: law must also be accountable to justice.
Likewise, freedom requires moral responsibility, and reason must remain capable
of addressing ethical and spiritual questions rather than being reduced to
technical calculation.
He warned against both excluding religion from public life and using
political power to impose religious belief. Religious renewal cannot be
achieved primarily through state power; it requires the demanding work of
living one’s convictions.
In his discussion of the Second Vatican Council’s declaration
Dignitatis Humanae, he emphasized the person’s freedom from coercion. Respect
for religious freedom does not require abandoning truth claims. It recognizes
that belief must be freely embraced. The human person must never become an
object of political, ideological, economic, or technological manipulation.
Taken together, the panel showed that institutional strength alone
is not enough. We must also ask who controls institutions, whom they protect,
and whether they preserve the freedom of conscience and the independence of
religious communities.
The morning’s examination of political power made the next question
especially pressing: how can religious communities cooperate with one another
while remaining faithful to their own convictions?
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Turning
interfaith respect into lasting cooperation
Another session explored how respect across religious differences
can become a lasting social reality. Mohamed Bahr, Nigel Coke, and Suvra Dev
Kar offered complementary institutional, educational, and grassroots
approaches.
Mohamed Bahr, Head of Strategic Planning, Muslim Council of Elders,
UAE, described the challenge of turning relationships among religious leaders
into sustained cooperation among religious institutions. The Document on Human
Fraternity provided an important starting point, but declarations and personal
goodwill must be followed by lasting partnerships.
He urged religious communities to bring their ethical resources into
discussions of climate change, artificial intelligence, technology, and other
shared challenges. Religions should help shape these conversations, rather than
simply endorse decisions already made by others.
Cooperation does not require theological compromise. Religious
traditions can retain their convictions while accepting responsibility for one
another and for the common good. Bahr described this as a movement toward
intellectual respect: taking the other’s beliefs seriously, correcting
misconceptions within one’s own community, and maintaining relationships even
during conflict.
His practical model was to convene, connect, and institutionalize.
Leaders must meet repeatedly, engage common concerns, and translate personal
relationships into partnerships that survive changes of leadership. His
presentation resonated with our experience in Egypt, where encounter and
hospitality opened possibilities for continued institutional cooperation.
Nigel Coke of the Seventh-day Adventist community in Jamaica
identified two supporting pillars of religious pluralism: legal neutrality and
grassroots religious literacy.
The state must not become the defender of one religious tradition
against others. At the same time, laws cannot teach people how to live
together. That responsibility belongs also to families, schools, congregations,
and religious leaders.
Coke stressed that pluralism does not require accepting all
religions as equally true. Its test is whether we will defend the freedom of
people whose beliefs we do not share. Religious education should therefore
distinguish disagreement from disrespect, draw upon each tradition’s resources
for compassion and hospitality, and avoid caricatures of other faiths.
His emphasis was particularly practical: religious communities
should teach their own members how their faith calls them to treat those with
whom they disagree. Respect must become part of ordinary formation.
Suvra Dev Kar, drawing on his work in Bangladesh as a human rights
activist, argued that interfaith respect requires deliberate organization.
Where hatred spreads through networks, misinformation, and social media,
respect also needs networks, training, reliable communication, and
institutions.
He described the vulnerability of religious minorities facing
communal violence and rumors. Goodwill alone cannot protect communities that
lack allies, access to authorities, and channels for seeking help.
His proposed infrastructure included leadership formation,
interfaith dialogue, positive communication, documentation, and cooperation
with public authorities. Young people should learn to recognize misinformation,
respond without escalating hostility, and communicate accurate stories of
coexistence.
International networks can support local advocates who might
otherwise work in isolation. At the community level, personal encounter makes
it harder to demonize someone who has become a known neighbor. His message was
that religious pluralism must be practiced through relationships and supported
by dependable systems.
These contributions moved the discussion from declarations of
goodwill to the arrangements needed to sustain cooperation. They also recalled
the importance of the relationships we had begun forming at the welcome dinner:
personal encounter is a beginning, but it needs continuity if it is to serve
communities over time.
.jpg)
Maintaining
the protections already in place
The third keynote address, delivered by Mairead McGuinness, Special
Envoy for the Promotion of Freedom of Religion or Belief Outside the EU,
emphasized that much of the legal and institutional infrastructure for
religious freedom already exists. The urgent task is to preserve it, strengthen
it, repair its weaknesses, and ensure that it works.
She began with the symposium’s group photograph: people of different
religions, professions, and convictions standing together peacefully. Such an
encounter is possible because laws, institutions, education, dialogue, and
mutual respect create the conditions for it.
She described growing pressures on religious freedom, including
declining institutional trust, technological disruption, weak governance, and
the exploitation of religion by violent actors. Against these pressures, she
defended the importance of international norms, democratic institutions, and
the rule of law.
Her framework contained four essential elements: strong human-rights
institutions; effective laws, courts, and protective authorities; active
religious and nonreligious communities within civil society; and education that
enables people to understand their neighbors.
She emphasized that religious freedom belongs to believers and
nonbelievers alike. It includes the freedom to follow, change, or leave a
religion, as well as the freedom to hold no religious belief. Communities must
therefore defend more than their own interests.
For McGuinness, the deepest foundation is human dignity. People may
disagree about its ultimate source while agreeing that every person possesses
it. This common conviction allows those with different beliefs to stand
together and protect one another’s freedom.
McGuinness’s reference to our group photograph brought the
discussion close to our own experience. The gathering itself depended upon the
freedoms we were discussing. Its diversity was a reminder of the institutions
and habits of mutual respect that allow people to meet without fear.
Sharing
the Philippine experience of trust
The main session on Monday afternoon brought together four
perspectives on the relationships that sustain religious freedom. This was the
session in which I delivered my presentation.
Fr. Andreas Minic of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Thyateira and
Great Britain described interreligious infrastructure as a source of social and
institutional resilience. Its value becomes especially clear when a crisis
arises: communities need to know whom they can contact, trust, and work with.
Relationships established in peaceful periods provide channels for
correcting misinformation, reducing tension, and coordinating a response.
Without them, each crisis requires communities to start again.
Minic emphasized that dialogue should preserve religious identity,
involve young people as agents and future leaders, and develop mechanisms for
common action. Young people should help design and evaluate initiatives, rather
than simply attend programs prepared for them.
From an Orthodox perspective, his foundation was the dignity of
every person as bearing the image of God. The encounter between religions is
therefore an encounter between persons. Its success should be judged by the
relationships and capacities it creates, especially their ability to withstand
conflict and resist the political manipulation of religion.
When my turn came, I approached the same question through our
Philippine experience and the encounters of our recent interreligious formation
program in Egypt.
In my presentation, I reflected on the contribution of religious
communities to social cohesion in the Philippines. I argued that freedom of
religion or belief requires an infrastructure of trust alongside its legal
protections.
The Philippines is a deeply religious country, but our history also
includes misunderstanding, exclusion, and conflict, particularly in relations
between Christian and Muslim communities. These experiences leave memories and
wounds that cannot be healed simply by asking people to forget the past. Trust
requires acknowledging those experiences and listening to the people who carry
them.
Constitutions and laws can protect religious practice and prohibit
discrimination. They cannot, by themselves, make communities trust one another.
That trust develops through repeated encounters, hospitality, shared service,
dialogue, and friendship.
I drew especially on our recent interreligious formation program in
Egypt. Filipino bishops and priests encountered Muslim scholars and leaders,
government officials, Christian communities, and Filipino Muslim students.
Lectures deepened our knowledge, but the experience also offered something more
personal: hospitality, honest conversation, and opportunities to understand a
religious tradition through the people who live it.
Encounter changes the way we see one another. When a person of
another religion becomes a friend, it becomes harder to reduce that religion to
a stereotype. The experience illustrated how dialogue can move beyond formal
statements and become a relationship capable of enduring disagreement.
I also distinguished tolerance from fraternity. Tolerance allows
people to coexist without coercion; fraternity invites us to recognize one
another as fellow citizens and partners in the common good. Differences remain,
but they need not prevent cooperation or friendship.
Religious leaders have a special responsibility in this work. Our
words and actions can deepen fear or open paths toward reconciliation.
Relationships built before a crisis provide channels for communication when
tensions arise.
A Catholic commitment to religious freedom must therefore extend
beyond the protection of Catholic interests. It must include concern for
Muslims, other Christians, members of other religious traditions, and people
who profess no religion. Religious freedom becomes credible when we defend it
for others as faithfully as we defend it for ourselves.
The infrastructure of trust is built gradually: person by person,
community by community, and encounter by encounter. This was the central
message I hoped to contribute to the symposium.
The other speakers in the panel approached this work from their own
religious traditions and national contexts. Their contributions showed how
conviction can support respect for others and how freedom must also be
experienced as belonging.
Paramatmananda Swami, representing Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha,
India, emphasized the social foundations of interreligious understanding: human
dignity, knowledge, listening, relationships, and shared service.
He argued that greater technological connection does not
automatically produce greater understanding. Ignorance and misinformation can
persist even when people have unprecedented access to information.
Dialogue requires curiosity about what others regard as sacred and a
willingness to understand their history and experience. Listening does not
require surrendering one’s convictions. Nor does harmony require claiming that
all religions teach the same things.
Drawing on Hindu understandings of the sacred, he presented respect
as an expression of religious conviction itself. His image of a bridge was
particularly helpful: a bridge connects two banks without making them
identical. Religious traditions can remain distinct while making encounter
possible.
Sardar Ramesh Singh Arora, a Sikh minister from Punjab, Pakistan,
asked what religious freedom should mean in the everyday experience of a
minority community. The answer was belonging.
Minorities should experience themselves as respected members of the
national community whose faith, heritage, and contribution matter. Public
recognition of Christmas, Diwali, Vaisakhi, and other celebrations can
communicate this belonging, but symbolic recognition must be accompanied by
education, security, justice, and equal opportunities.
Arora emphasized the reciprocal test of religious freedom: are we
prepared to protect the freedom of someone whose religion differs from ours? A
culture of freedom develops when communities defend one another, particularly
when majorities safeguard the dignity of minorities.
The Sikh emphasis on service and the unity of humanity provided the
religious foundation for this contribution. Across the panel, the shared
message was that authentic religious identity and respect for others can grow
together.
.jpg)
The panelists for the Infrastructure of Interreligious Understanding and Respect for Human Dignity (L-R) Paul Kerry, Moderator, Fr. Andreas Minic, Msgr. Bernardo Pantin, Paramatmananda Swami and Sardar Ramesh Singh Arora.
Conscience
and the obligations of citizenship
The session on conscientious objection explored the tension between
individual conscience, collective religious identity, and the obligations of
citizenship.
Professor Petr Muzny of the University of Geneva emphasized, in the
response recorded in my notes, that conscientious objection is an individual
right. Religious affiliation may provide evidence of sincerity, but it should
neither automatically establish nor automatically exclude a claim. A person’s
convictions cannot simply be inferred from the official teaching of a religious
community.
Dmytro Vovk of Ukraine identified unresolved questions concerning
alternative service, the number of objectors, and the exercise of conscience
during war. Civilian service should provide a genuine alternative rather than
punish a person for exercising a right. At the same time, wartime conditions
raise difficult questions about national defense, changing convictions, and
selective objections to particular wars. He presented these as tensions
requiring further reflection rather than questions with simple answers.
Rabbi Yaron Catane examined the collective deferment of Haredi men
engaged in Torah study in Israel. He distinguished this arrangement from
individual conscientious objection. A limited historical accommodation had
grown into a broader controversy over religious identity, equality, military
needs, and shared civic burdens.
He discussed the effects of changing security conditions and the
possibility of forms of military service that accommodate religious
requirements. The session highlighted the importance of distinguishing an
individual claim of conscience from a sector-wide exemption based on religious
membership.
This session brought the larger theme down to difficult personal
decisions. Protecting conscience requires careful attention to the individual,
while questions of service and citizenship also require communities to consider
the responsibilities they share.
.jpg)
Fellowship
after a day of discussion
The sessions were followed by opportunities for informal
conversation and fellowship. After a full day of presentations and discussions,
we gathered for dinner at the Utah Valley Convention Center, conveniently
located just a block away from our hotel.
The evening featured a delightful performance by a BYU ballroom
dance group. The dancers impressed us with their precision, elegance, energy,
and beautifully coordinated movements.
It was an enjoyable occasion that allowed delegates from different
countries, religions, and professional backgrounds to relax, appreciate the
artistic talents of BYU students, and continue building friendships in a more
informal atmosphere.
The evening’s conversations continued in a less formal setting.
After discussions about legal institutions and historical divisions, sharing a
meal and enjoying the students’ performance gave us time to know one another
beyond our professional and religious roles.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
October
6 Making religious freedom dependable
Tuesday deepened the connection between human rights, peacebuilding,
and public life. The discussions repeatedly returned to a practical concern:
whether people can depend on the protections promised to them, particularly
when they are vulnerable or afraid.
Protecting
human rights and preventing violence
The discussion involving Michael Wiener, Castro Wesamba, and
Commissioner Maria Amifaith Fider-Reyes presented human-rights protection as an
interconnected system. Their contributions emphasized participation,
prevention, and accountable institutions.
Michael Wiener of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights in Geneva argued that religious communities should be active
contributors to human-rights protection, rather than simply beneficiaries of
religious freedom.
He discussed the Beirut Declaration and the eighteen Faith for
Rights commitments, which connect human-rights principles with resources from
religious, spiritual, indigenous, and humanist traditions. Peer-to-peer
learning allows participants to contribute and learn as equals while
maintaining clear opposition to human-rights violations.
His examples showed the importance of widening participation,
including women, young people, religious leaders, and communities whose
perspectives have received less attention. He also emphasized implementation:
educational resources, practical guidelines, and non-binding standards can have
significant effects when institutions actually use them.
Using the symposium’s image of a house, he described faith-based
actors as potential architects, builders, engineers, advisers, and watchdogs.
Maintaining the house of human rights is a shared responsibility.
Castro Wesamba, Political Adviser at the United Nations Office on
Genocide Prevention from Kenya, drew on his experience in genocide prevention
to emphasize early warning and timely intervention. Atrocity crimes develop
through processes that can be identified before mass violence occurs.
Discrimination, dehumanization, hate speech, incitement, and attacks
on communities can signal escalating danger. Prevention therefore requires
monitoring, risk assessment, functioning institutions, and the ability to act
before harm becomes catastrophic.
Religious leaders can contribute through their moral authority and
local influence, countering hatred and protecting vulnerable communities.
Democracy, inclusive governance, regional organizations, international
cooperation, and treaty commitments provide additional layers of protection
when national systems weaken.
His central lesson was that prevention must begin early enough to
protect lives. Waiting until violence becomes overwhelming means that essential
opportunities have already been lost.
Commissioner Maria Amifaith Fider-Reyes of the Philippine Commission
on Human Rights emphasized the practical effectiveness of national
institutions. Constitutional guarantees matter only when people can rely on
them in everyday life.
She identified the Constitution, separation of Church and State, the
rule of law, an independent judiciary, an effective national human-rights
institution, and active civil society as essential supports. These institutions
must provide remedies, investigate violations, promote education, and maintain
accountability.
She also stressed that religious freedom depends upon other
freedoms, including expression, assembly, conscience, and civic participation.
Disinformation, weak accountability, attacks on civic space, and religiously
motivated violence undermine the wider environment in which religious liberty
can flourish.
Together, the three speakers showed that the strength of
human-rights infrastructure lies in its connections. Laws establish
protections; institutions enforce them; early-warning systems identify danger;
and civil society and religious communities help maintain vigilance. Its
purpose is to make human dignity effective in people’s lives.
Hearing Commissioner Fider-Reyes contribute to this discussion was
especially meaningful after meeting her as a fellow Filipino delegate. The
panel connected our country’s experience with the broader work of human-rights
education, institutional accountability, and the prevention of violence.
.jpg)
.jpg)
Peacemaking
through protection and healing
For the first breakout session of the day, I chose “Interreligious
Understanding and Peacemaking.” The speakers were Renz Christian Argao of the
Philippines, Matius Ho of Indonesia, and Sahlim Charles of Kenya.
Argao, Coordinator, International Youth Committee, Religions for
Peace International, Philippines, described the “infrastructure beneath the
infrastructure”: the human relationships that make legal protections livable.
Drawing on Mindanao, he explained how trauma and inherited memories can turn
religious difference into fear, prejudice, exclusion, and renewed violence.
Peacebuilding must therefore address historical wounds alongside
legal and political structures. Recognizing another community’s dignity does
not diminish one’s own. The Bangsamoro experience illustrated the need for
legal safeguards and relational healing to develop together.
He summarized his approach in three responsibilities: protect,
connect, and heal. Protect every community through fair laws and institutions;
connect people across religious differences before crises arise; and heal the
wounds that transmit fear to another generation.
Young people should help design this infrastructure. They may
inherit painful histories, but they can also shape what will be passed on to
those who follow them.
Matius Ho, Executive Director of the Leimena Institute, Indonesia,
presented Indonesia’s experience of Cross-Cultural Religious Literacy. He
distinguished governmental restrictions from social hostility and argued that
both must be addressed. Good laws cannot by themselves remove distrust between
communities.
His program develops three competencies: understanding one’s own
tradition, understanding other traditions through their adherents, and
cooperating across differences that may remain unresolved.
Examples involving Muslim and Christian schools illustrated how
carefully prepared encounters can lead to sustained partnerships. Visits, joint
activities, and practical assistance helped students and educators move beyond
suspicion. Cooperation builds trust, which makes further cooperation possible.
Ho also emphasized the difference between strengthening
relationships within one’s community and building relationships across
communities. Diverse societies need both. Religious literacy becomes most
effective when knowledge leads to encounter and shared action.
Sahlim Charles, Founder and Executive Director Re-Imagining New
Communities, Kenya, asked what religious-freedom infrastructure actually
delivers to a person who is afraid. A child facing discrimination, a family
experiencing intimidation, or a person changing religious convictions needs
accessible protection, not simply an affirmation of rights.
He emphasized clear responsibilities and usable procedures
connecting schools, families, community leaders, and public institutions.
Relationships must function when misinformation or threats arise, and
interfaith networks must include smaller communities and people whose
convictions may make established leaders uncomfortable.
Charles also made an important distinction: dialogue, mediation,
investigation, and protection serve different purposes. Dialogue must never
become a substitute for accountability, nor should a vulnerable person be
pressured into reconciliation at the expense of safety.
His work with children encouraged listening, nonviolent
communication, responsibility, and cooperation. Children should have meaningful
agency, while safeguarding remains essential. Religious freedom should become
dependable in ordinary life, rather than rely upon exceptional acts of courage.
The question-and-answer session brought the three presentations
together around trust. Charles urged practitioners to begin by listening to
communities and understanding their histories, relationships, and needs.
Programs should be developed with communities so that they can assume ownership
of them.
Ho emphasized the design of encounters. Simply bringing different
groups together does not necessarily reduce prejudice. Knowledge must be
accompanied by positive experiences and meaningful cooperation.
Argao described trust-building as a process that works from the
grassroots upward and from senior religious leadership downward. Leaders can
model cooperation, while communities test whether institutions deserve their
trust.
Their advice to new peacebuilders was direct: understand yourself
and your biases; find someone different and do something together; and approach
the other with openness. Trust develops through experience, responsibility, and
sustained relationships.
Argao’s contribution echoed the historical wounds I had discussed in
my own presentation. The exchanges with Ho and Charles made clear that trust
must be built with communities and tested through the help people receive when
they need it. Encounter matters, but so do safety, responsibility, and
accountability.
.jpg)
The panelists for the "Interreligious Understanding and Peacemaking" breakout session: Sahlim Charles, Matius Ho, Renz Christian Argao and Andrew Reed (Moderator).
Religion
and the state
For the second morning breakout session, I attended “Religion and
the State,” with Chae Kim of Korea, Jorge Botelho Moniz of Portugal, and Jean
Regina of Brazil.
Chae Kim, Professor of Sogang University, South Korea, traced Korean
religious freedom through persecution and resistance to coercion. Catholic
experiences under the Joseon Dynasty and Christian resistance to imposed shrine
practices during Japanese rule contributed to a historical consciousness of the
importance of faith and conscience.
He argued that constitutional protection emerged from Korea’s own
experience, rather than simply being borrowed from foreign models. Religious
freedom carries the memory of those who suffered for their convictions and
should be treated as a foundational constitutional value.
In the discussion, he emphasized finding a shared language of
dignity and moral concern, especially where conventional human-rights language
has become politically polarized. Relationships can open a conversation that
abstract arguments alone may fail to sustain.
Moniz, associate professor at Lusófona University, Lisbon, examined
how states mobilize religious and civilizational identities to reinforce
political power and geopolitical ambitions. Religious symbols, heritage, and
authority can become resources for defining national belonging and wider
spheres of influence.
His comparative examples highlighted different mechanisms through
which governments may draw the sacred into political projects. The danger is
that religious autonomy becomes subordinate to national identity, while
minorities are excluded or treated with suspicion.
He warned that religion can move from being protected by the state
to being used by it. Religious communities may face political appropriation
even without consenting to it, as political actors adopt their language and
symbols.
In the discussion, he acknowledged the importance of grassroots work
but stressed that advocates must also engage political institutions and
decision-makers. The protection of religious freedom requires safeguards
against the absorption of religion into state power.
Jean Regina, a Brazilian attorney and scholar specializing in law
and religion, presented Brazil’s concept of collaborative secularity.
Separation between religion and the state can coexist with lawful cooperation
for the common good, provided that neither loses its independence.
He identified separation, freedom of action, benevolence,
collaboration, and equal consideration as guiding principles. The state should
protect religious participation without endorsing theology or assigning greater
rights to politically useful communities.
Religious organizations must remain free to decline partnerships or
criticize government without losing their ordinary freedoms. Cooperation
becomes problematic when it creates dependence, favoritism, or control.
Regina also showed how international dialogue itself can become
infrastructure: ideas explored at the symposium can influence research, legal
practice, and constitutional debate at home. His contribution offered a
practical framework for cooperation that preserves religious autonomy and state
impartiality.
The panel’s common concern was how to allow religion to contribute
fully to public life while protecting it from political manipulation.
These national perspectives returned to the concern raised on
Monday: cooperation can benefit society, but it must leave religious
communities free to act, disagree, and serve without becoming dependent upon
political favor.
Faith
in public life and at work
In the first afternoon breakout session, I chose “Religion in the
Public Square,” featuring Oscar Díaz of Peru and Fabio Nascimento of Brazil.
Díaz, professor and judicial adviser at the Pontifical Catholic
University of Peru, examined Peru’s movement from a confessional state toward a
model of secularism that permits cooperation with religious communities. State
impartiality need not prevent partnerships that serve legitimate public
purposes.
He identified an inequality in access to formal cooperation
agreements. While the Catholic Church has an agreement, other communities face
uncertainty about the criteria for eligibility. He called for clear, objective,
reasonable requirements that allow religious communities to seek cooperation on
fair terms.
The practical lesson was that constitutional equality needs workable
procedures. General recognition of religious freedom is insufficient if
communities cannot access the mechanisms through which it is exercised.
Nascimento, Brazilian attorney and a PhD researcher in law and
religion at the Universidad Complutense, Madrid, examined religious
accommodation in the workplace. Employees bring religious commitments into
ordinary working life, raising questions about schedules, holy days, dress,
prayer, and conscience.
Anti-discrimination law establishes essential protections, but
organizational culture determines much of the daily experience. He presented
faith-oriented Employee Resource Groups as potential mediating structures
between employees and management.
Such groups can improve religious literacy, identify problems early,
help resolve accommodation requests, mediate tensions, and contribute to fair
corporate policies. Their effectiveness depends upon inclusive design and
appropriate safeguards.
He also argued that accommodation can strengthen trust, belonging,
and organizational quality. Religious inclusion should be understood as part of
caring for employees and building a healthy institution.
The discussion considered legal standards for workplace
accommodation and the practical benefits of cooperation agreements. Both
presentations emphasized the need for mechanisms that turn general rights into
usable protections.
The examples from Peru and Brazil showed how religious freedom
reaches into ordinary settings. A community seeking a cooperation agreement and
an employee requesting an accommodation both need clear procedures through
which a recognized right can actually be exercised.
Artificial
intelligence and the dignity of the person
The final breakout session I attended addressed artificial
intelligence, religion, and law. Joseph David of Israel, Erik Longo of Italy,
Shohruh Tillaboev of Uzbekistan, and Yuriy Tykhovlis of Italy explored
technological change from philosophical, legal, cultural, and protective
perspectives.
Joseph David, Professor of Law at Sapir Academic College, Israel,
used the Tower of Babel to reflect on technological disruption. Innovation can
strengthen human capacities while also producing unforeseen fragmentation and
weakening the relationships that sustain communities.
His question was what technology does to human connectedness.
Ethical evaluation must consider its effects on trust, shared life, and social
institutions, alongside questions of usefulness and individual harm.
Erik Longo, of the University of Florence, Italy, described AI as an
increasingly influential infrastructure governing access, opportunities, and
decisions. Systems reflect the choices and values of those who design, finance,
and deploy them.
He emphasized the concentration of technological power and the need
for accountability, oversight, pluralism, and practical enforcement. Regulation
must work in everyday operations, rather than exist only on paper.
His concluding emphasis was care: recognizing a person as someone
with a face, dignity, and needs, rather than reducing that person to a function
or data category.
Shohruh Tillaboev, Senior Researcher at Tashkent State University of
Law, Uzbekistan, discussed AI governance in Central Asia and the importance of
integrating law, technology, ethics, culture, and religious values.
AI can expand access to information, but information does not
automatically confer wisdom or legitimate authority. This distinction matters
especially in law and religious interpretation. An AI system may assist a
judge, scholar, or religious leader, but it does not thereby assume that
person’s responsibility.
He called for interdisciplinary cooperation and a framework in which
technology supports human judgment while accountability remains with human
decision-makers.
Yuriy Tykhovlis, Ukrainian lawyer and a Rome-based official of the
Vatican Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, examined the use of
AI in online exploitation and human trafficking, particularly the danger to
children and other vulnerable persons. Technologies that can support protection
can also be used for manipulation, impersonation, grooming, and abuse.
His response was a coordinated infrastructure of prevention
involving binding legal safeguards, technological oversight, international
cooperation, and shared responsibility among governments, companies, law
enforcement, civil society, and faith communities.
Protection must anticipate emerging threats rather than depend
entirely on intervention after harm has occurred. Protective systems must
themselves respect privacy, fairness, dignity, and accountability.
The concluding discussion asked what distinguishes the human person
if AI matches or exceeds particular intellectual abilities. The panel
challenged the assumption that intelligence, productivity, or usefulness
determines human worth.
Human dignity does not increase or diminish with cognitive
performance. The person must be understood through embodiment, relationships,
moral responsibility, spirituality, and the capacity for integral flourishing.
AI should serve that flourishing. It should never become the
standard by which the value of a human life is measured. This discussion
connected a rapidly developing technological issue with the symposium’s
enduring concern for the dignity of every person.
The discussion of artificial intelligence widened the symposium’s focus while retaining its central concern. Whether power is exercised through government, institutions, or technology, the person’s dignity and freedom must remain the measure of its use.
.jpg)
The panel of speakers for the topic AI, Religion and the Law: Yuriy Tykhovlis, Shokhrukhbek Tillaboev, Erik Longo, Joseph David and the Moderator, Brett Scharffs.
The
closing reflections
Late in the afternoon, the formal symposium drew to a close. Four
participants from South Africa, Indonesia, the Dominican Republic, and Rwanda
reflected on what the discussions meant in their respective settings. Their
perspectives brought the legal and institutional themes back to people’s
experience of justice, belonging, and responsibility.
Mzwandile Molo of South Africa, representing the South African
Council of Churches, situated religious freedom within the broader struggle for
human dignity, justice, and equality. Drawing from his country's painful
history, he reminded participants that both laws and religion can become
instruments of oppression when separated from respect for the human person.
Religious freedom, therefore, must be measured not simply by the existence of
legal protections but by the actual conditions experienced by vulnerable
communities. He called for the protection of minorities and the recognition of
diversity as a gift rather than a threat. Invoking the African philosophy of
Ubuntu, he expressed the interconnectedness of humanity in the words, "You
are not who you are without me." His message underscored that the freedom
and dignity of one person are inseparable from those of others.
Gusti Suwardami of Indonesia reflected on the challenges and
opportunities of maintaining religious harmony in a country characterized by
remarkable religious and cultural diversity. Indonesia's experience
demonstrates that peaceful coexistence cannot be taken for granted. It requires
continuing dialogue, tolerance, mutual respect, and cooperation among
government institutions, religious communities, and ordinary citizens. She
emphasized that religious tolerance must move beyond declarations of principle
and become a practical commitment expressed through policies, relationships,
and everyday conduct. Her reflections highlighted the responsibility of diverse
communities to strengthen social harmony without diminishing their religious
identities.
Ivan Ogando of the Dominican Republic, representing the Seventh-day
Adventist Church, offered a more personal challenge. Expressing gratitude for
the opportunity to encounter people of different faiths, he emphasized that the
promotion of religious freedom cannot end with conferences, declarations, or
academic discussions. It requires individuals who are prepared to speak and act
in defense of liberty of conscience. Drawing inspiration from Ellen G. White,
he encouraged participants to become advocates for religious freedom and to
make effective use of modern communication technologies in spreading its
message. His appeal was direct and memorable: "Be that voice for
freedom." In this way, he reminded everyone that the protection of
religious freedom is not exclusively the responsibility of governments and
institutions; it is also a personal responsibility.
Judith Kazaire of Rwanda, representing the Rwanda Governance Board,
emphasized the indispensable role of good governance, accountable institutions,
and interreligious cooperation. Constitutional guarantees, she observed, are
insufficient unless supported by institutions capable of protecting rights and
ensuring that every person is treated with dignity. She highlighted the
important contributions of religious communities to education, healthcare,
peacebuilding, and social development. At the same time, she recognized both
the opportunities and challenges introduced by emerging technologies,
particularly artificial intelligence. Her reflections pointed to the need for
responsible leadership and ethical safeguards in a rapidly changing world. For
Kazaire, the infrastructure of religious freedom must be grounded in trust,
dialogue, institutional accountability, and respect for the human person.
Their reflections prepared the way for Brett Scharffs and Elizabeth
Clark to consider what the gathering asked of us as we returned to our
communities.
Building upon these reflections, Brett Scharffs, Director of the
International Center for Law and Religion Studies, offered a compelling
synthesis of the symposium's central theme by identifying three interconnected
dimensions of infrastructure necessary for religious freedom.
The first is physical infrastructure: places of worship, schools,
religious associations, and communication networks that provide spaces where
religious communities can gather, worship, learn, and participate in society.
The second is institutional infrastructure: constitutions, laws,
courts, and administrative mechanisms that recognize religious freedom, protect
fundamental rights, and provide remedies when those rights are violated.
The third is social infrastructure: the relationships, attitudes,
and habits that enable people of different religions and beliefs to live
together peacefully. These include religious literacy, tolerance, reciprocity,
friendship, mutual respect, and trust.
Yet Scharffs suggested that beneath these three dimensions lies
something even more fundamental: what he called the "infrastructure of the
heart." Using the analogy of a city, he explained that empathy and moral
proximity serve as the roads and bridges connecting people. Universities and
places of worship can become spaces of encounter and sustained listening.
Generosity and goodwill are like the water that sustains life, while social
trust functions as the electrical network that enables communities to work
together.
He also reflected on the importance of how people respond to
conflict. When tensions arise, some individuals intensify hostility, spread
fear, and deepen divisions, while others seek to calm tensions, correct
misinformation, and build understanding. Those committed to religious freedom
must strive to become people who reduce hostility rather than contribute to it.
His reflections ultimately shifted the discussion from the structures societies
must build to the character of the people who will inhabit and sustain them.
The question is not only what kinds of laws, institutions, and policies are
necessary, but also what kinds of persons we must become if we hope to build
societies characterized by peaceful pluralism. The answer lies in cultivating
empathy, humility, curiosity, generosity, goodwill, and a sincere recognition
of the dignity of every person, including those whose beliefs differ from our
own.
Elizabeth Clark, Associate Director of the International Center for
Law and Religion Studies, complemented Scharffs' reflection by addressing the
challenges and possibilities confronting religious freedom in today's world.
She acknowledged the troubling global developments that threaten religious
liberty and peaceful coexistence: the weakening of commitments to international
human rights norms, increasing political polarization, the rise of exclusionary
forms of nationalism, and the misuse of religion to justify discrimination and
oppression.
To illustrate the tension between discouragement and optimism, she
imagined a conversation between two friends concerned about the future of
religious freedom. One saw the growing threats and felt overwhelmed by the
magnitude of the problems. The other pointed to the many encouraging
initiatives, committed individuals, and institutions working to defend
religious freedom. Rather than choosing between pessimism and uncritical
optimism, Clark proposed a more constructive response: realistic hope grounded in
sustained commitment and practical action.
She compared the work of promoting religious freedom to the
construction and maintenance of physical infrastructure. Bridges, roads, and
public institutions do not appear overnight. They require planning, patience,
resources, cooperation, and the willingness to overcome difficulties. In the
same way, the protection of religious freedom demands long-term investment in
institutions, relationships, and shared responsibilities.
To illustrate this point, she recalled the reconstruction of the
historic Stari Most, or Old Bridge, in Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Destroyed during the Bosnian War in 1993, the bridge was eventually rebuilt and
reopened in 2004 through years of international cooperation and perseverance.
The bridge became a powerful symbol of what can be accomplished when people
refuse to allow destruction and division to have the final word. What conflict
has torn apart can, through vision, determination, and cooperation, be rebuilt.
Clark's message was therefore both realistic and hopeful. Religious
freedom faces serious challenges, but these challenges do not justify
resignation. They call instead for renewed commitment to the rule of law,
institutional accountability, cooperation across religious and cultural
differences, and the patient work of rebuilding trust.
Scharffs’s “infrastructure of the heart” and Clark’s account of
rebuilding the bridge in Mostar gave a personal dimension to the theme
introduced on Sunday evening. The work requires functioning institutions, but
it also calls for people willing to listen, reduce hostility, and remain
committed when progress is slow.
.jpg)
.jpg)
Following the day's sessions, another dinner was hosted at our hotel
in Provo.
This time, a different BYU performing group entertained the
delegates with songs and dances featuring Broadway musicals. The performers
displayed remarkable talent, enthusiasm, and professionalism.
The songs and dances from Broadway musicals provided a cheerful
close to an intense day. The warmth of these evenings was part of the
experience I would carry with me alongside the presentations.
October
7 Service and farewell encounters
Our final day in Utah was devoted to a tour of Salt Lake City.
Our first stop was the Humanitarian Center of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints. I was particularly interested in learning about
the center's work in assisting refugees and other individuals beginning new
lives in the United States.
The center helps participants acquire practical skills, improve
their English-language proficiency, and prepare for employment and greater
self-reliance. We also observed the sorting, processing, and packing of donated
clothing for distribution to people in need, both in the United States and in
other parts of the world.
It was encouraging to see how religious commitment finds concrete
expression in humanitarian service.
From the Humanitarian Center, we proceeded to Temple Square, the
historic and spiritual center of the LDS Church. We visited the visitors'
centers, where we learned more about the history, beliefs, and worldwide
activities of the Church.
One of the highlights of the final day was a luncheon held on the
26th floor of the LDS Church Office Building after our tour of Temple Square.
More importantly, the luncheon gave us an opportunity to meet and
converse with international leaders of the LDS Church.
I had the privilege of sitting beside Elder Patrick Kearon, a member
of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, whom I had also met during my visit the
previous year. It was a pleasure to renew our acquaintance. Also at our table
was Carlos Revillo, the Philippines Area President and member of the General
Authority Seventy.
After hearing so much about institutions that serve human dignity,
the visit to the Humanitarian Center offered a concrete example of faith
expressed through assistance to people rebuilding their lives. The luncheon
then gave us another opportunity for personal encounter with the religious
leaders who had welcomed us.
The highlight of this final gathering was the address of Elder D.
Todd Christofferson, an Apostle of the LDS Church. He emphasized that religious
freedom is more than a legal right; it is rooted in human dignity and the
God-given gift of moral agency. Every person must be free to follow his or her
conscience, and governments have the responsibility to protect that freedom. He
reminded us that defending religious freedom means protecting not only our own
beliefs but also the rights of those who believe differently. Referring to the
teachings of Jesus, particularly "Blessed are the peacemakers"
(Matthew 5:9), he stressed that genuine peace requires dialogue, mutual
respect, compromise, and the willingness to overcome differences.
His message provided a fitting culmination to the reflections of
Brett Scharffs, who spoke of the "infrastructure of the heart," and
Elizabeth Clark, who challenged us to become bridge builders through practical
cooperation and sustained commitment. Together, their messages reminded us that
religious freedom rests not only upon laws and institutions but also upon human
dignity, trust, goodwill, and the courage to work for peace.
What
I carry from Utah
As a Catholic priest, I was reminded of the teaching of the Second
Vatican Council in Dignitatis Humanae that religious freedom is grounded in the
dignity of the human person. The discussions challenged us to make that
conviction visible by defending the freedom of others as faithfully as we
defend our own.
The experience also deepened my appreciation of our recent
encounters in Egypt. There, Muslim scholars and religious leaders welcomed us
as partners in the search for peaceful coexistence. In Utah, we received the
hospitality of another religious community whose beliefs differ from ours. Both
experiences showed that dialogue can grow while people remain rooted in their
own faith.
I am grateful for the knowledge gained and the friendships formed
and renewed. I will remember the welcome at Zermatt Resort, the Tabernacle
Choir, Sunday Mass at the Cathedral of the Madeleine, the conversations between
sessions, and the generosity of our hosts. These encounters gave a human
setting to the laws, institutions, and principles we examined.
I came to Provo to share how trust can be built across religious
differences. I left with a deeper conviction that this work is a shared
responsibility. It continues whenever we listen to another person, acknowledge
historical wounds, protect someone whose beliefs differ from ours, and find
ways to serve the common good together.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
